So, I'm thinking about the current format and ways we can tweak it. There are a couple of different choices I think.

First, is go with more structure, something closer to a Harold. But I think that rigidity is not really the answer. Tends not to be as fun, too.

Second, we could change up the editing style as we discussed in last rehearsal. Maybe go from "follow the action" to a fade. If we do cuts, which I'm not oppose to, I think maybe we'd need to consider a bigger theme change, which brings me to three.

Three, we could develop more a theme-based showed. So, for instance, one of the shows that ran in NYC was called "Mortal Kombat" or something. Each member of the group was responsible for an editing technique. So one person could "Rewind the scene" another player could "Forward the scene" another could change the location, etc. It was sort of billed as a mock competition.

Another theme the Cabal developed, but never performed, was "Board Room". In the first scene, you would have two people mention a product at some point. Then it would cut to the board room execs improving that product in some way. Then it could cut to scenes about the production line, research guys developing the product, marketing guys marketing it, people selling it and finally it would get back to the original scene with the new product. The focus was not on the product, per se, but it would sometimes cause the scenes to go in different directions. And it was all about how this product impacted the lives of the characters, whether it be small or large.

Another one we never performed, but talked about was called "Ceremony". The idea would be to create a new religion through a series of scenes and make the audience your followers. It was sort of like on that was performed in NYC where the group would create a civilization based on an audience suggestion.

I would say, if we go back to cuts, we should consider adopting some kind of theme, at least for say, a year.

-TD

I think our main goal shouldn't be to scrap the format we have, I kind of like our structure, I think we need to remove the confusing parts, espcially when it comes to Pipeline transitions, that always seems to go wrong at least once.

I'm thinking we could keep the format of follow the scene until we get to the Pipeline. For example, the third scene can be a sweep ending then the person who does the sweep starts the pipeline, we get three or four beats into the pipeline then start the second set of scenes. (This makes sense in my head, BTW) I like the follow the scene and the pipelines, there just seems to be major confusion about transitions between pipeline and scene.

Also, keep the monologue openings, I think that's a positive change.

Yeah, I do enjoy the monologues a lot because I think the best comedy comes from truth. I don't know if we gain much by keeping the transitions for one section and not the other. I think that would make things more confusing. We could change the pipeline to a group a scene or modify the rule to allow any character to go into the next scene regardless of when they leave.

-TD

thanks for setting up the forum tony, nice work.

change is good. change is good. yes we can. yes we can. -- that's an homage to my boy barack.

first off, I love the monologues (truth based). i've been wanting to do this and i'm incredibly happy we've moved in that direction. please, let's keep it.

second, i think the combination of "follow the action" and pipelines is too much. it slows us down and puts us more IN OUR HEAD (caps for emphasis, not anger) than is necessary or good. so i believe a change is in order.

I kind of like this idea:

Each member of the group was responsible for an editing technique. So one person could "Rewind the scene" another player could "Forward the scene" another could change the location, etc.

We could try that out.

Simple cuts is easier than fades, so perhaps we should do cuts for a while until we get better with fades -- all while working in the "theme" above.

Finally, keeping the cell-phone and group name would allow continuity for the "Ninja" brand.

I like to consider myself as a flexable person. if the group feels as though a change is needed in the format, I have nothing against it.

One show I remember doing was from a year or two ago with Tony, Cory and I at the raven's lounge. Our inprov seemed to have come from casual converstion between us and the "SMALL" audience we were with. One seen we did was when Cory was playing the part of Faraul Balk (one of the girls from "The Craft", I'm aware I spelt her name wrong) and I was trying to hit on her. I think to conversation came from someone in the audience who spent some time in L.A. I hope you remember the show I'm talking about Tony. I can explain it more at our next meeting.

As for other new Ideas, I really like the idea of truth monologs. Building a charater and killing him off is O.K. But as it was pointed out, there is humor in the truth. for some reason I can see truth monlogs working alot more for us.

As for the rest of the format, I'm open to new idea's. Whether we use a phone or one work suggestion. Or if we chose to keep or leave the pipeline stick. I'm a open book and is willing to learn new things.

Well that is my two cents for tonight. Untill then I look forward to the next rehersal. I'll see all of you soon.


Dan Lavelle

I have to agree with Jay. We have been performing together for over a year, and I don't think that we have clearly nailed the transitions or the pipeline in performance. Since we've dropped the character based monologue for the truth based monologues, we have altered our format for the better. (I think we all agree with that.) We need to examine how the ripples of that change affect the rest of the format in our show. By keeping the format containing the transitions and pipelines, we are blocking the effects built from the truth monologues. The truth based monologues are very simple and honest. It is this simpleness and honesty that I feel need to be further explored in reformatting the show. Because the truth based monologues are simple, we don't have to think to hard about them. This allows us to play uninhibitedly, which has become very evident in our first scenes. As Jay noted, we seem to lose that sense of honest playing and become very heady when it comes time for transitions and pipelines. Therefore, I think it is in our best interest to develop a simple format, possibly using wipes, in order to concentrate our efforts in playing the games and having fun, instead of getting lost in our format. Because if we get lost in our own format, I am sure that our audience is a little lost watching us. I also think the more simple the format, the easier it is to catch and keep an audience, especially those who aren't familiar with long form improv. I think that we may benefit by returning to the basic harold form, and let any change develop from there.

Dan

I find the Harold a bit too rigid because the scenes all tend to be straight sequels since you need the same characters in each scene.

Harold Format

Group Game
1st beat, 1st scene
1st beat, 2nd scene
1st beat, 3rd scene
Group Game
2nd beat, 1st scene (same characters)
2nd beat, 2nd scene (same characters)
2nd beat, 3rd scene (same characters)
Group Game
3rd beat, 1st scene (same characters)
3rd beat, 2nd scene (same characters)
3rd beat, 3rd scene (same characters)

The Cabal had a variation on that called the Strothinator, it went like this:

The Cabal's Strothinator

Two truth-based monologues
1st beat, 1st scene
1st beat, 2nd scene,
1st beat, 3rd scene,
Pipeline (unlike ours, one person stayed on stage while players came in and out.) or Group Game
2nd beat, 1st scene
2nd beat, 2nd scene
2nd beat, 3rd scene
Pipeline or Group Game
3rd beat, 1st scene
3rd beat, 2nd scene
3rd beat, 3rd scene
Run

Like in our form, the game could carry over, but not necessarily the same characters. Since the scenes could cut, it could be the same game in a different time period or location or with new people. The "Run" was a series of free form scenes based on what had gone before. Basically, a tag out comprised of previous characters, scenes and locations combining. Group Games were sometimes based on a game we'd like to play called "Town Hall Meeting", where one person would lead a town hall meeting or press conference on stage, while the cast dispersed in the audience to ask questions.

It occurs to me that by eliminating the character monologue we've lost the "death" at every show. Maybe we can build the piece around the death of a character. It could maybe build to the death. I'm just spit balling here, but something like this:

Truth monologues
1st scene: Post-death scene: A scene that is after the character died. It could be the funeral, autopsy, crime scene, people reading about it in the paper, whatever.
2nd scene: Pre-death scene: A scene that takes way before the character died. It could take place hundreds of years before and have no connection to the death or it could take place early in the character's life.
3rd scene: Close to death scene: This scene takes place on or about the day of the characters death. The goal is to have the character die in the third beat.
2nd beat, 1st scene
2nd beat, 2nd scene
2nd beat, 3rd scene
3rd beat, 1st scene,
3rd beat, 2nd scene
3rd beat, 3rd scene (character dies)
Optional Run: Should the scenes be short or the character's death unimportant in the scheme of the piece, you could continue by doing a tag out/run of short scenes wrapping up the loose ends.

The transitions could be fades, which I think are the simplest. You could add the option of cutting to enhance the scene, but I would use that sparingly. There are other editing techniques too like revolving door that could be added.

What say ye to this?

-TD

Tony, I have to disagree with your thoughts on the Harold, the way PHIT teachers taught it to me (and maybe Jay since I know he took classes with me) you don't need to bring the same characters back all the time, as long as the game is the same you can do it with other characters as well, or bring one character back to play the game with someone else, or bring them both back.

I like the full on Harold format myself but there are a lot of groups that do that so, a little variation is fine and a welcome change.

Well, it was my understanding that the original Harold always had the same characters and that everything else was a variation, but whatever. Either way, the format's pretty staid at this point. Personally, I find it more confining than our current format.

What say ye about the brainstormed format?

-TD

So, for Jay and just to review:

We went over some editing techniques and will continue to work on scene work and experiment on some possible formats for the new form. The things we went over include:

Revolving Door
Sound Effects
Adding Environment via Freezes
Cutting with leaps backward and forward in time
Pipelines as the Cabal did them
Town Hall

Plus Tim showed us some new warm ups. Jay, if you want to try some of these next week, I'm sure the group will oblige.

The key is, to start thinking about a new form, a new angle or whatever based on the Ninjas' concept. The concept being, the Ninjas never actually do any Ninja stuff. However, somehow, someone always dies. (or something.)

-TD

So, I had a thought. What if, during the Run, we killed off all the characters one by one?

-TD